linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: bd718x7: Use kcalloc() instead of kzalloc()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <eb3555e9-afc1-4f0f-969c-fdb66231d0b8@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:30:03 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@...o.com>, Liam Girdwood
 <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: bd718x7: Use kcalloc() instead of kzalloc()

On 17/08/2025 17:23, Qianfeng Rong wrote:
> Replace calls of 'devm_kzalloc(dev, count * sizeof([type]), flags)'
> with 'devm_kcalloc(dev, count, sizeof([type]), flags)' in
> setup_feedback_loop() for safer memory allocation with built-in
> overflow protection.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@...o.com>
> ---
>   drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c
> index e803cc59d68a..022d98f3c32a 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c
> @@ -1598,7 +1598,7 @@ static int setup_feedback_loop(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
>   		if (desc->n_linear_ranges && desc->linear_ranges) {
>   			struct linear_range *new;
>   
> -			new = devm_kzalloc(dev, desc->n_linear_ranges *
> +			new = devm_kcalloc(dev, desc->n_linear_ranges,
>   					   sizeof(struct linear_range),
>   					   GFP_KERNEL);
>   			if (!new)

Thanks Qianfeng.

I don't think this is particularly hazardous, because the 
n_linear_ranges is known to be small. (It's populated in this same file, 
with a size of pre-defined array). Still, this seems like a valid change 
to me. I know some would say we should use sizeof(*new), but I kind of 
like the sizeof(struct linear_range).

Reviewed-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>

Yours,
	-- Matti